The Need for Religion

A few disclaimers are necessary before the beginning of this post:
(1) I am a religion major, and a religious individual. I call myself a Christian--mostly because that is the religious tradition in which I have been raised--but draw from many different religions and philosophies.
(2) As a religion major, I am facinated by the presence of religion in society and at awe at the myriad religions of the world, always respectful of each in their own unique circumstance.
(3) I refuse, even though I call myself a Christian, to accept that there is only one "true" religion. I FIRMLY believe it is the believing that is important. The religions of the world hold many of the same tenets in common (namely: truth, justice, peace, love, you know the "biggies"), and no one is better or more "correct" than any other; it is a true question whether "God" created man or many created "God." In either case, the worldly, temporal interpretation of God is incredibly limited and mortal (read: given to fallibility).
(4) This post is not meant to be a rant, or to push a cause. It sprang from several lengthy discussion I had with a friend of mine, which I am terribly greatful for if for no other reason than they made me think twice about why I believe.

That said, here is my essay (which may be shaped or modified in the future, check back!) on the need for religion and why I am a "Christian."

First it should be said that the title we give ourselves, be it religious or otherwise, is closely related to the circumstances in which we are raised. I, raised in a religious, Christian family, call myself a Christian. Yet, my interpretation of Christianity is very much different from many people I know and certainly from the "norm." Am I any less Christian? I do not think so. I think that whatever the believer calls himself (in my case) is what he is. I call myself Christian because that is how I was raised, that is what is comfortable; and yet I draw upon several other religions and philosophies: meditation techniques from Buddhism, many prayers from Islam and Judaism (they are far more poetical, much more beautiful to listen to and say than most Christian prayers), acceptance from Baha'i (actual, the more I read on this, the more I like it). Yet, I was raised Christian, and believe that Jesus and I are tight, which is important to Christianity; and yet at the same time whatever you believe is good too. Again, it's the belief not tenet you believe.
Now, before I get comments about it, there are certain exceptions you may want to hear about but which I will not for the following reasons:
(1) You will want to except Satanism. And while you may have a point, I do not consider this a religion, and therefore will not except it.
(2) It is my firm belief that if you hold strongly to a belief, and act upon that belief, you will reap the consequence of that belief/action (good or bad). Therefore in believing and possibly acting upon Satanism, living in the hedonistic, epicurian manner which cares about comfort and joy now, one will reap the benefits/consequences (depending how one names it) when necessary.
That said, let's move on. I feel it is necessary to define my terminology. Philosophy. Philosophy is a defined set of beliefs with an emphasis on living life for the "now" or the "near future" or the "life." Religion. Religion is a defined set of beliefs with an emphasis on living life in relationship to a given set of "consequences (which can be good or bad)" in the "after-life;" life lived in relationship to "something else." Thus: Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, are philosophies; Baha'ism, Islam, Judaism, Hinudism, Christianity are religions.
I was once asked why I call myself a Christian if I disagree with so many of Christianity's teachings. My answer is several-fold:
(1) Martin Luther considered himself Catholic even though he disagreed with Catholicism and was excommunicated.
(2) Many people disagree with Christianity's teachings. If they were all to just leave the religion, it would die. There are many benefits (after-life excluded) to believing in Christianity. To leave is throwing the baby out with the bath-water. It is more productive and more fulfilling for me to work for change from within. That is, until it was challenged from the inside, women could not be ordained, gay men could not be ordained (which is most Churches except the UCC and the Episcopal Church, USA is still the case). Individuals did not just leave because they disagreed, they worked for change from within.
(3) The Church is different from Christianity. Most of what I disagree with is Church-related. I hate the Church, I think it is a slow-moving, earth-centered, temporally-motivated, power-hungry, bigoted institution which wrongly and selfishly mis-interprets (whether or not it is purposeful is for you to decide, and the subject of a whole other post) Scripture, and history for it's own gain. Christianity--the given set of beliefs set on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth--is not really my problem. We need to remember that Woody Guthrie once sang about, if Jesus came to earth today, the world would call him a communist. He was (and still is if that's the belief you're into) a terribly liberal individual who preached love beyond all things (even beyond the pain of one's own body). The Church has forgotten this in search of more power and gain on earth. That does not mean Christianity has.
(3a) Now, yes, I do still attend liturgy on Sunday mornings (don't I wish Lutherans did the whole Saturday evening thing!). But, as I explained to a friend of mine, liturgy is something very different for me than I think for most people. It is a time wherein I force myself into closer communion with the "something else." Also, I think it is incredibly necessary as this is the only time in most people's hectic lives when they read/listen to scripture and wherein that scripture is interpreted. This is incredibly important. The constant reading and re-reading of scripture shoudl serve to keep the scripture alive, and relevant to society and the times, to people's lives. Now, that is what should be. Most preachers, however, are not so good at this point. They take very limited (I've seen as little as five words) segments of scripture and begin to digress into a 30 minute sermon on something completely irrelevant and/or wrong. Regardless, preaching and listening to preaching is for me a necessary part of my spiritual life. It is where I hear my scripture being read, own it, interpret it, listen to someone interpret it, and really make it my own. The sermon is not the time wherein I listen to someone tell me what the scripture is saying, it is wherein I listen to scripture, think on it, listen to what someone thinks about it and use that to better form what I think about it.
But Why? Why any religion. That is a very good question and has led to vey lengthy discussion of religion vs science; Christianity vs. Humanism; etc. My answer is, again, several fold:
(1) Religion is the opiate of the masses. It makes people happy, it answers the unanswerable, and people like that.
(2) Science is very important. I firmly believe in evolution. Religion should never be at odds with science. They can be reconciled. Yet science can answer the what, the when, the where, the how, but not really the WHY. Why are we here? Why do we exist? The whole "what is the meaning of life?" question.
(3) There are two distinctive ways of looking at the world that push people's buttons. Religion and Science. They are both ways of interpreting the world and yet they are two distinct views. I do not think they need to be at odds with one another, though many people do. They are both relevant to today's society and should both be respected.

Okay. I need a good conclusion but at 8.01 pm after a very long weekend in Athens, Greece, I need ome rest before I develop it. So: check back soon! There will be a conclusion soon!

Pax,
JCM

What a Smart Man...

So, I received word today that The Rev. Mark S. Hanson, president of the LWF and presiding bishop of the ELCA, received a letter from 138 Muslim leaders calling for peace between Muslims and Christians. They reasoned that since these two religions make up such a huge majority of the population, peace between them is necessary for the larger peace.

I sort of agree. However, their letter severely lacked all mention of peace with Jews which seems--at least in the present age--as a much higher priority than peace with Christians with whom Muslims have not had a violent interaction since the Cursades. DO NOT DO IT! Do not comment on the Wars in Iraq or on Terror because those are NOT religious wars. Those are wars fought solely for economic and imperial gain.

The Rev. Mark S. Hanson replied with one of the wordiest letters I have ever read from him and mentioned (everytime he mentioned peace between Muslims and Christians) the Jews. Also, when citing Scriputral references for peace he mentions "The Quran [sic], The Torah, and the New Testament."

What a smart man.

Blessings,
PAX,
JCM